I’m a Protestant interacting with and learning about the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. This was extremely helpful as it led me to see that there is a lot more charity in views and opinions from the Catholic faith than the Orthodox, even when disagreements boil down to semantic quibbles. The mystic and monastic side of Orthodoxy has been quite appealing to me, but through my studies, I am just continually blown away by the fullness and consistency of the Catholic faith and subsequent worldview. Thanks for doing a rebuttal, it was quite helpful.
God bless. To come to catholicism is an act of faith in christ. To give up the "freedom" of interpreting however you want and to submit to the papal authority, trusting in jesus promise to guide the church. Many protestants seem to take the easy way out and go to orthodoxy because papal authority is an act of faith that is hard for protestants who have been taught to be their own Popes. I hope the holy spirit guides you to whichever is the fullness of the truth
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 Thank you. Please pray for me and my wife as well. She is pretty much against becoming Catholic so it has definitely been a difficult journey.
You probably see consistency in Catholicism over Orthodoxy more so because protestantism is an offshoot from the Roman Catholic tradition, and the theology you grew up with is steeped in Catholic scholasticism, rather than for the fact that it is actually coherent.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa is it coherent that the Orthodox used to see the bishop of Rome as first among equals but now see the bishop of Constantinople/Istanbul as first. Truly Ephesus II, the “robber council” was when their intent to climb the patriarchal ladder was revealed, by them seeking to be second to Rome over Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. By conflating the seat of the government with the seat of Peter reveals that any excuse will do for a tyrant. What’s more the practice of caeseropapism in Constantinople pretty much said the emperor has dominion over Christ’s body. Today the patriarch of Constantinople/Istanbul has succeeded in becoming first among equals, but of what? I’ve been to Istanbul. It is heartbreaking to say the very least. Just my opinion, which comes from reading and hearing Orthodox polemics, hate without cause killed Jesus and it’s killing the Church in Istanbul.
Sad to say Fr Josiah was the tip of the iceberg for my moving from EO to Catholicism. I just couldn't take the stirring up stuff from 1200 years ago and trying to make people mad about it now. The historical cherry picking made me start looking at the Catholic side of the argument.
I know what you mean, even though Ive always been Catholic. A reunification of these ancient Churches would go a long way to mitigate confusion for seekers and, as Jesus prayed to the Father, “that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me”.
@SweatinCowboy If he's truly interested in being honest, five minutes of Googling would disabuse him of his misconceptions. He grossly misrepresents Catholic doctrines. That is neither honest nor edifying.
@sweatincowboy4692 LOL. He is grossly misrepresenting what we believe about Purgatory. Period. Believe it or not, we know what we believe better than our critics do.
The Orthodox admission that, "sure, obviously the Latin Patriarch did act as the final court of appeal in the early church" always strikes me as damaging to their anti papal argument; it implies that at one point the church had an organ of appeal that was lost, fundamentally changing how the ancient faith is governed.
The pope never had the last say on all things, sure he was appealed to but lots of times they didn't care about what he said, especially at chalcedon given the fact they studied the tome for 3 days to make sure it's Orthodox
@@cnst.33even if one were to grant that everything you said is true, it doesn't address the issue that is raised by Fr. Trenham's statement that it is the ancient tradition of the Church that among the Patriarchates Rome was a final court of appeal. This statement raises the problem that the ancient tradition was for the Church to have a single Bishop who could, at the very least, act as a final court of appeal on some matters, how could any Church without such an organ claim to be adhering to the ancient faith?
Father Stanley Jaki observed that the path toward VCII ecumenism was opened with the Rebaptism Controversy in the third century. As soon as we determined that heretical and schismatic baptisms are valid -- presuming they have proper form and matter -- then we *ipso facto* acknowledged that Grace exists outside of the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. This is the basis for all true Christian ecumenism.
Moreover, VCII was explicitly responding to changed circumstances, to wit: The original heresiarchs and schismatics were long dead. Meanwhile, their descendants had grown up in Protestantism or Orthodoxy, as the case may be, and that had been their heritage for generations. So, they were far less culpable than their ancestors. In fact, in many cases, they were invincibly ignorant, so they weren't culpable at all. Changed circumstances demand a response, obviously. Any sane person can see that dogma was not changed at VCII. Rather, we were dealing pastorally and charitably with a completely different denominational landscape. And we were applying the age-old notion of "invincible ignorance" to the modern situation.
@@silveriorebelo2920 Can you cite your source for that? Father Jaki was incredibly erudite and absolutely orthodox. I would have a hard time discounting his views.
Regarding Patriarch of the West, in an early work, then Ratzinger expressed a preference for “Patriarch of the Latin Church,” because there are Eastern (Catholic) Churches in the West and Latin Churches in the East.
@@ReasonandTheology That's what I don't get. Ten seconds' worth of Googling would give Fr Josiah an accurate answer to this question. Yet apparently he prefers to recycle anti-Catholic slanders rather than looking for the facts -- even though the facts are quickly, readily, and easily accessible. How does this bear any resemblance to arguing in good faith?
Absolutely true. In fact, Irenaeus's depiction of Mary as the New Eve encapsulates the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception. And, as Dr. James Likoudis has shown, before Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854, the Orthodox had no real problem with it. There were entire Orthodox confraternities in 19th-century Russia dedicated to defending the Immaculate Conception *to the death!* But as soon as the Church defined the IC dogma, suddenly the more intransigent Orthodox had all kinds of objections. Because Heaven forfend they should agree with us Catholics about *anything.*
Any Orthodox person saying it’s a heresy doesn’t understand what a heresy is or why the Orthodox Church reserves that nuke for things that need nuking. False teaching? Ok. At best a theologumenon? Fine. An understandable mistake engendered by St Augustine’s fundamental misunderstanding of Original Sin (rooted in his inability to read Greek)? Even better. Heresy? Nope.
@@bradp1983 Actually, it's this whole Ancestral-versus-Original-Sin polemic that's the innovation. It basically comes from Romanides. The Fathers overwhelmingly affirmed Original Sin. And as for the Immaculate Conception, it's implicit in Irenaeus's teaching about Mary as the New Eve. Just as Eve was created sinless, so was Mary. But unlike Eve, Mary remained sinless. This is affirmed as early as 180 AD.
I looked at EO carefully once I, as a Lutheran, came to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura was totally unbiblical. EO is attractive to Prots, IMHO, because it has the mindset of Protestantism. Being "against Rome" is the siren call. Fr. Josiah's arguments may seem plausible...but they just don't cut it. History and facts are stubborn things. I'm glad our EO brothers and sisters have valid sacraments. Hopefully many of them will come home to Rome.
Orthodoxy has a completely different mindset than either Catholicism or Protestantism. Please read the book "Thinking Orthodox" by Jeannie Constantinou. There is no need to "come home to Rome" for an Orthodox Christian. We are already home. Historically Rome was but 1 of 5 of the original Patriarchates.
@@bradp1983 she is a horrible resource when she engages Catholicism. It is almost comical. And yes one of five patriarchs. Sure. But this one out of the five was established by Christ and is essential to the church’s constitution. See my answering Eastern Orthodoxy playlist and my papacy playlist. Also I’m not buying the different mindset caricature that some in the East paint. Thanks for your comment.
@@ReasonandTheology How is she a horrible resource? A priest's wife, highly credentialed, and cradle Orthodox. The mindset is definitely different than Protestant and Catholic. Who would you say best represents Orthodoxy and carries the Orthodox phronema?
I like the Lofton, Horn dissecting duo, nicely done & informative. I can't help but notice a strong similarity w/ the Schism & Protest..& some petty issues unfortunately & they only seem to help the holy Catholic Church
I'm increasingly convinced the best way for me to find the truth of God, is to pray, confess, and repent. I don't do a good job at those things, but I hope I can keep focusing on it to do it better step by step. I struggle with phone and UA-cam addiction, eating up my time and sleep. Please pray for me.
First-I really enjoy your channel and how you keep it charitable and factual. I was listening to this video while doing yard work with phone in my pocket. When I pulled my phone out of my pocket, I had a message that my feedback had been sent, and if it was deemed offensive, they would report it. I did not intend to send that so if you see a report of some sort against this channel from me, it was an accident. I tried to be out how to revoke it and I couldn’t. My apologies!!! You do a fantastic job and absolutely nothing offensive is happening!
@@robertotapia8086 I listen to Catholic channels when I’m cooking, doing housework etc and even when I’m driving in between prayers. Travelling to Mass I have just enough time to do a Scriptural Rosary by sitting in my car and finishing the last half of the last decade. Then on my way home I have enough time to do the Chaplet for the Holy Souls. It’s a great way to pray when you are driving a familiar route so can multi task by focusing on your prayer and driving. My Parish Priest (who was a Franciscan of the Immaculata prior to working with students at a university as Chaplin and then after 2 Parishes of his own) is a big advocate of getting people to increase their prayer life so we are praying unceasingly and that we can achieve this by praying while we do chores or drive. But he also says praying unceasingly isn’t just kneeling down to pray - that when we read Scripture or listen to videos/read books to deepen our faith/learn more about the faith/learn about the virtues to apply them etc that is also classed as praying as we are increasing our connection and relationship with God. He also counselled me that even if you are walking along as realise you are surrounded by something beautiful or that you were graced by a beautiful soul even for a moment directing yourself to see God in it and saying a quick prayer of “thank you God for the beauty you have surrounded me with” - your thoughts about ‘wow it’s amazing God made this and your quick prayer is adding to you praying unceasingly. So he told me that if I can’t at the moment pray or focus on praying to just enjoy the time and be with God thinking about him. I’ve told several people about this online when they’ve asked how they are meant to increase their prayer life when life can’t allow them to stop and get on their knees. They all typically realise that they have been praying a lot more than they first thought. I wonder if it’s a failure in catechising because I don’t remember ever being told that praying is much more that just hitting your knees and that God isn’t legalistic in that if you aren’t on your knees when praying He won’t accept the prayer.
@@irishandscottish1829 thank you for your beautiful post! You've given us some really helpful ideas on increasing prayer life. I believe it is a failure in teaching as I too do not recall every being told that listening to such teachings is counted as prayer and I grew up in the 90s when we did have audio cassettes of preaching which would've counted as prayer. My 2 cents is that the Church had strayed too far from the mystical side of things and now so many of us are being called to model Jesus in our day to day lives. God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide you all the days of your life.
@@alisterrebelo9013 from my understanding of what my Priest said he said listening to videos/reading books on the faith could as prayer when we are actively getting something from it that will make our understanding of the faith and love of God deeper. I know myself when I listen to different videos like the Dominican monks from Godsplaining who this Easter have been going through the gifts of the Holy Spirit it’s deepened my prayer life as I’ve learnt of the gifts better/had a refresher of them so when I pray to God I can ask for specific gifts for the Holy Spirit to fill me with when I know I’m lacking in them more than others or I want to increase a certain one more I think it’s probably about getting the right balance so when combining all these it increases our prayer life. As he told me that while praying while driving/doing chores is a good thing we still have to make time for prayers on our knees where we can give God 100% devotion.
Trent said something to the effect of "in the case of reunification, Catholics would not seek the destruction of the treasures of the East." this is true. but in my experience, in any reunification with the Eastern Orthodox, they would seek the destruction of the treasures of the West. I never get the impression they think we have any treasures to begin with.
Well said. Fr. Josiah's video perfectly proves that with his total disdain for western disciplines. Very rarely do I ever hear that sort of thing from the other sides.
In my lay opinion: The treasure we lost is the Catholicity required for the Apostolic succession to function properly. The body of Christ lost its dominant hand (not its head). The problems of the East (mostly due to reticence to make declarations) would have been tempered by the West’s juridical nature. And the West’s penchant for theological innovations and de-traditionalizing chicanery (which, you are correct, we do not view as treasures) would have been corrected by the steadfastness of the rest of the Apostolic church.
Fr. Josiah presented very clear arguments and substantial evidence to support them. Your channel also provided an argument but it’s a bit insincere to say you’ve refuted him. At best this is a agree to disagree.
@Michael, the direction of the sign of the cross, from left to right, like Roman Catholics, is practised by Oriental Orthodox like the Copts, Amernians, Syriacs and Ethiopians, and a Coptic priest told me the direction in which way the sign of the cross is traced is not a matter of dogma.
7min-8min your right about middle eastern Catholics and middle eastern orthodox Sharing in sacred things,and it's happening today as well and alot in my community. I grew up in a Lebanese community of a few hundred families I would say over 80 percent are Catholic and 20 percent orthodox, In the month of may each year we get a mariam statue from either Rome, Lordes etc etc and the statue will rotate around each person's home where we would all get together every night for rosary with the priest and all the orthodox families would join in. Also when we have arabic mass(once or twice a month) in our country town celebrated by a Catholic Priest at the locals NO church, just about each and every one of the orthodox attend... Also when someone passed away we mostly would have a Catholic and orthodox priest at the church together.(something I really disagree with personally) And all the orthodox families sent their children to Catholic schools growing and most if not all the children attend Catholic Church for their Sunday obligation... Also just 3 month ago a Lebanese orthodox man passed away in the community and his orthodox priests chose to do the funeral service at the local Catholic Church (NO) which is only 5 minutes away from his families home where as the closest orthodox church was 30minutes away. I attended the funeral service, and I heard later on in the day mass was celebrated by them at our church (which I strongly disagree with) Also 2 month ago when my grandma passed at the hospital our Catholic Priest gave her last rights, and then an orthodox priest came just after she had passed and believe or not he prayed and lead the rosary with us while we where around her. I didn't allow at her funeral though for anyone but a catholic priest alone to do the funeral service... I personally am strongly against any priest that isn't a priest in full communion and union with the Holy Father (Holy see) to be anywhere close to the Altar of the Lord.
This is something I’ve encountered in Eastern Catholic churches here in the states, particularly the more ethnic ones - the priests will often say their parishioners and parishioners from local Orthodox parishes inter-commune without giving it a second thought. They tell me about how their parishioners often receive communion at Orthodox churches and vice-versa, and how nobody involved really has a problem with it.
Woah this is very similar to me but opposite. We are majority Roum. I do feel the same as you though I wouldn’t want a priest in communion with the pope at our alter. It wouldn’t be appropriate.
Maybe at one point this was true, but too much time has passed and there have been too many Roman innovations to reconcile at this point. It would take repentance on the part of the Roman Church to repent of her error and submit herself to the normal collegial hierarchical ecclesial structure. I would love for there to be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that includes the Roman Patriarchate again, but Rome would have to bend her neck in humility, repent, and accept her rightful status as an equal to the other Patriarchates.
@@bradp1983 That's the thing. There is no error in the Catholic Church. One Bishop has always had primacy over the others since the very beginning of Christianity. Saying otherwise is simply erroneous. So, thinking the Catholic Church is in error is an error in itself, one born out of not being humble [go figure]. It is the true magisterium of faith. The Church will reunify once the Orthodox patriarchates are cleaned from pride and become humble again. Some of them have already done it, let that sink in for a minute.
@@bradp1983even IF I agreed with you and I don't, imagine what things would have been like if the 'objectors' from the EO and the Reformation had instead stayed to reform the Church from within. The solution is NEVER further breakup the body of Christ (on earth) further because of oversized ego and pride. To me, two major sins were committed, one is rejecting Christ's establishing the Church on Peter and the other is breaking the command to stay united. I pray for us to be reunited again, Mary has been warning us about the chastisement to come. We need to be united and face it together. Pray more and in every spare moment, I love you my brother in Christ.
@@zeroisnine Orthodox are not sanctimonious puritans. To commune unworthily is to damn yourself so we wouldn't want that. It is a big deal to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. Even Orthodox Christians that haven't prepared should not receive the Eucharist. Truthfully none of us are worthy, but we are made worthy by the Grace of our Lord when we repent and prepare our hearts and minds. Not sure if this is what you are referring to or not, but we ascribe to different core beliefs about the Trinity via filioque and we have a different Ecclesiological structure than the Roman Catholic Church so how could we be in communion?
As someone trying to discern between the two Faiths. This may be the deal-breaker for me, or at the very least a significant push towards Catholicism. I have a few other objections I am working through, but thank you guys for the hard work! ❤
@@bradp1983 This wasn't the only thing I have listened to, investigated or studied... This just kinda was a push over the edge. The straw that may have broke the camel's back. More to study, I plan on trying to investigate Orthodoxy more so, but The evidence is leaning hards toward Catholicism.
I really wanted to give the EO church a try… I just didn’t see the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. that you’d expect to see in Christ’s true church. And I saw mostly converts that were just as anti-Catholic as Protestants. Sorry, but it’s the see of Peter for me! 🇻🇦
Sorry you didn't find the people you were looking for. I will say that it sometimes depends on the particular parish. I have been in three parishes now, and two of them are the kindest people you will ever encounter. The Church is a hospital for sinners. Also, not trying to be rude but why would you go to an Orthodox Church and be surprised that the people there aren't "Pro-Catholic"? We Orthodox ARE Catholic, but we aren't Roman.
@@bradp1983 He didn't say "not pro-Catholic." He said "anti-Catholic." There's a huge difference. Our local Methodists are not particularly pro-Catholic. But they aren't rabidly, vitriolically, relentlessly anti-Catholic, either. Most Online Orthobros are all of the latter. It's what von Balthazar called the "Anti Mentality." And it leads to what someone else has called "self-definition via negation." Sometimes it seems like: If y'all couldn't define yourselves against *us,* could you define yourselves at all? Now, our local cradle-dominant Greek Orthodox community does seem much more irenic, thank God. But even they showcase vitriolically anti-Catholic books in the Agora at the annual Greek Festival. NO Catholic parish would *ever* do something like that. We consider ourselves the One True Church, but we don't spend all our time bashing other churches. Especially not yours! Our tract racks in the narthex aren't filled with pamphlets denouncing the Eastern Orthodox. It's a whole different approach -- positive, not negative.
BTW, in the case of converts to Orthodoxy: Many of them come from Protestant evangelical traditions steeped in anti-Catholic bigotry. When they become Orthodox, they bring all that anti-Catholic baggage with them. And it's more than just tolerated in their new communion. It's welcomed! Plus, they also get to be anti-Western. Two "anti" mentalities for the price of one! What's not to like? /sarc
@@dianekamer8341 It's really a distinction without a difference. Most Orthodox are not wasting too much time bashing Catholics, but if you ask why are the Catholics wrong on this or that issues or what is the difference between the Catholic position and the Orthodox position they can probably list a few reasons. That isn't really anti-Catholic as it is just telling the truth as an Orthodox would see it. Most Orthodox would rather not need to waste time doing such unprofitable things.
He’s also wrong to say that Latins are baptized without chrism. That’s not true. The priest uses chrism after the water. In the West, there were two post-baptismal anointings, the second given by the bishop, which is how it got delayed after massive conversions following the edict of Milan.
A biblical verse sheds a great deal of light on this subject......."By their fruits ye shall know them". I think in light of this verse the Orthodox Churches far outshine the Roman Catholic Church today.
I think it's telling that I'm always pleasantly surprised when I hear an Orthodox Christian being charitable to the Western church's views. Even if they disagree and favor the Orthodox position its a breath of fresh air to hear someone like Ed Siecienski or Kallistos Ware. Conversely I'm always a bit surprised when I hear a Catholic being uncharitable toward the Orthodox, it happens here and there but much less likely in my experience.
That is precisely my experience as well, stretching over many years of online interaction. In Real Life it seems to be different. Our local Greek Orthodox (mostly cradles) seem pretty irenic and ecumenical.
@@dianekamer8341 oh yeah I have family who are Orthodox and lovely people. I'm really talking about some intellectuals, clergy and monks who seem to really stretch our differences as much as possible to the point of it being a bit silly. I once saw an Antiochian church claim in their FAQ that there is "more that divides us (Catholics/Orthodox) than we have in common." I'm not saying there aren't some important points of disagreement but that claim is over the top.
The Schism SHOULDN’T happened and yet what is the church that doesn’t work towards getting back together? We will be accountable with God one day for not trying to fix this separation of HIS church
I'm orthodox myself, but to call the Filioque "The crown of all evils" is just completely nonsensical. Anyone who thinks that saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the supreme evil, has no idea what real evil looks like.
"Evil" can mean "indicating future misfortune", not necessarily morally wrong. So calling it the crown of all evils is actually true, because the filioque does indeed lead to more issues widening the schism later on.
Hello there, I'm so glad you made this video! I'm a Catholic and I watched Fr. Josiah's video a couple years ago and took him at face value to a certain degree. I didn't think he was this far off in many aspects. At one point in my life I was thinking of becoming Orthodox. Have you guys ever seen the Journey Home show with guest James Likoudis? He was a (Greek) Orthodox convert to the Catholic church and that show really helped me remain in the Catholic church and will always remain there.
Yes it is. The term Roman Catholic was used as an insult in England by the Anglicans who wanted to be called Catholic. They coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves so they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term). The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
@Zenex Yes that’s mostly right, western Catholics belong to the Latin church which use the Roman Rite. 99% of the time when someone says the “Roman Catholic Church” it’s a misnomer and exhibits some level of ignorance, if not maliciousness. You could potentially use the term Roman Catholic to merely differentiate from eastern Catholics, just for the sake of brevity. But we all collectively belong to the Catholic Church,
@@vesnanuspahic7510 that is not what they are asking. They are asking if calling Latin Rite Catholics ‘Roman Catholics’ is correct or not. If you read my reply and another you will see we tell them they are correct and that ROMAN Catholic is not what the Latin Rite is
@@irishandscottish1829 Alternatively, you're just gatekeeping the term "Catholic" from Catholics who are not going along with the papacy's nonsense but still want to be part of the true Church. I don't have much of a dog in the race myself, since I'm not even sure if I'll stay in the faith, but you should ideally recognise other people's perspectives and nuance.
I always understood that the unleavened bread reminds us of the unleavened bread the israelites made in their hurry to flee Egypt . They had no time to waste for the dough to rise .
It'd also profoundly Paschal: "Christ our *Passover* is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the Feast." The Last Supper was a Passover meal. That is what we are re-presenting . IMHO the EO charge that we're "judaizing" betrays a deeply ingrained and highly problematical anti-Semitism pervasive in Orthodox culture.
We understand leaven as associated with the Kingdom of Heaven and appropriate for The Eucharist. The Eucharist was leavened in both East and West in the beginning. The West started using unleavened bread as early as 7th century but Roman Catholic priest Joseph Jungmann says it began in 11th century.
@@bradp1983 apparently there is a debated question about leavened or unleavened bread. The important thing is that the difference of usage should be of little dogmatic importance. The practice of the apostles does not establish this conclusively. Most probably they made use of whatever bread was at hand, leavened or fermented. Different customs began to group in different localities. Eastern churches (this is before the schism) for the most part used leavened bread. Western churches preferred unleavened. At the time of the Schism the difference gave rise to much discussion of the value and fomented controversy. In any case it is interesting to know why the Catholic Churches are using unleavened bread. I do not know when this became official though. Events become more clear as time passes. Pope JPll explained once that dogmas do not change but evolve as time goes by. Compare it to the seed of an apple tree . The seed becomes a tree but it is still an apple tree, not another tree. As you know ,the New Testament fulfils the Old Testament. The last Supper of Christ Jesus is instituting the New Covenant to the Apostles. HE is the New and True Lamb of God. The Old Testament Passover is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Passover is remembered by the slaughter of the lamb and one week of unleavened bread. Why was the bread unleavened? In their haste to leave Egypt, the Israelites could not let their bread rise and so they brought unleavened bread. Therefore the symbolism of the Kingdom of Heaven for leavened bread is very nice and there is nothing wrong with it and does not change the validity of the consecrated host. Using the unleavened bread which is attached to the events of the Passover (slaughtering a lamb and unleavened bread), in the Eucharist and wine. which is Christ as the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for the sins of the world , fulfilling the events of the Old Testament is the CENTER and most important Teaching of the Church is in fact deeper and truer to the events which all of us have learned of, being the Passover and the last Supper of Christ.
@@bradp1983 Both are valid. Both are appropriate. Both are permissible. Jesus Himself undoubtedly used unleavened bread at the Last Supper. You can't get any more ancient and traditional than that. This is not a church-dividing issue.
The schism hurts my heart. Jesus' prayer that his followers would be one is something that weighs heavy on me. As a Catholic (a new Catholic mind you), it feels like we're so so close to one another. I get that there are some serious issues to work out. But the Orthodox feel more like estranged brothers than excommunicated (completely out) people. If I understand right, the formal excommunications have been lifted on the Catholic side.
The positive thing is that the Popes since the Council have done more to help heal the schism than in the past 500 years. I try to remember to pray for reunification with each Rosary
There is alot of hatred in the orthodox communities, people growing up with horror stories about catholic crimes. Those who preach hate will expose themselves for being antichrists, our answer can only be to be as lamblike as we can be and reject hatred entirely
I watched this a few days ago. I just could not stop thinking about that first point that he made about 1054 not being the year of the schism. Right out of the gate he brings up something that nobody today had anything to do with. That is why EO didnt appeal to me, there seemed to be an Indignant attitude towards Catholics, at least in alot of the stuff on youtube. It seems to be based less on theology amd more on, "hey look at what, "the latins" did to us."
Then you didn't look deep enough into it. I was a RC. I mean my family literally came from Italy and Ireland. I can tell you it's much deeper than that. There's lots of points of contention. But it is convenient in trying to make small of "look what the Latins did to us". I mean it's literally the Latins who imposed torture devices, inquisitions, total purges of populations, and of course; the 4th crusade. But that's not even the beef. The beef is in the dogma and for some former Catholics like myself; the dark truth of child abuse going back centuries. The fact John Paul II knew about it and did nothing to stop it. The fact you have so many clergy that deserve to be brought to justice for their crimes and were protected in the Vatican, and of course the idea of Papal Infallibility; especially after all I just listed
@harleymann2086 :( Please try making more substantive arguments. This is hurtful, and insensitive towards our convert brothers some of whom have a much more Catholic mind than I.
@Harley Mann He certainly sounds like a fundamentalist Protestant when he completely misrepresents Purgatory. How hard would it be to take 10 seconds to find out what Catholics actually believe? Has Fr Trenham never heard of Google? Good grief. And oh my gosh, WRT the Sign of the Cross: Can he get any pettier? And yes, *re* baptism, he sounds exactly like an Independent Fundamental Baptist.
The schism really is a shame. I do like Fr. Josiah, and have found many of his videos to be spiritually edifying. But as is common with the Orthodox, once the topic turns to Catholicism or Russian history/politics, everything goes south.
@harleymann2086 You made the accusation, you should substantiate it. Or as debaters would say, the burden of proof is on you. I shouldn't have to disprove random claims. True or otherwise.
I found the quote mentioned at 1:54:55. At the first Council of Nicea the one eyed and celibate Paphnitius convincingly opposed clerical celibacy (possibly a proposed canon) and the council agreed. This is found in: The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens, volume 1 and page 280. I purchased this book in a Catholic bookstore.
On the 4th Crusade: as wicked as that was, let's not forget the fact that the Catholics in Constantinople were massacred and had to flee the city a few decades before that siege. 01:48:30 there are different traditions of fasting in the Catholic world indeed; I use to fast on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, but these are more local ways of doing it, voluntary forms.
Tbf, the massacre was in response to Vencecians taking over the economy of Constantinople with the Emperor giving them preferential treatment over local merchants, and was strongly condemned by the Emperor after.
I've heard a non-denominational Evangelical argue that the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed is illegitimate because it violates the restrictions of Ephesus. He describes himself as a Nicean Christian because he sticks to the original creed, implying if not stating outright that every council after Nicea I was illegitimate. Of course that conflicts with how the Council of Constantinople came before Ephesus and so gave the formula before the restrictions and so wouldn't be under the anathemas anyway, but since Ephesus insisted on Nicea I's formulation, he would probably just dismiss that point. The Orthodox really need to look at the timeline and consider the logical implications of their position with "adding to the creed."
Correct, the Council of Constantinople in 381 added to the Nicene Creed. At Ephesus in 431 AD, the Creed was recited in the original form as stated at Nicea in 325. The Filioque was taught by Saint Hillary of Poitiers and Saint Augustine well before Chalcedon in 451 AD which affirmed the additions to the Nicene Creed at the Constantinople in 381 AD. Pope Leo the Great also affirmed the Filioque and nobody said he was unorthodox at Chalcedon 451 AD.
Sister Lucia never said any such thing. She said Russia would become *Eastern Catholic.* I'm sorry, but Father Josiah seems to be misrepresenting here.
If you deny the possibility of directly experiencing God via Divine, Uncreated Grace, then no human can ever experience/know the Uncreated God directly, but only know about God via some crrated experience. But, according to St. Gregory Palamas, we may experience the Uncreated God by sharing in Uncreated Grace.
Keep in mind that Fr Josiah was raised and educated in reformed theology (Presbyterian) so he had a fundamental bias against Catholics which influences his beliefs.
I've heard Orthodox priests say that Mary was purified of sin while still in the womb of her mother. Orthodox obviously hold to Mary being sinless throughout life. I've heard Fr. Trenham himself say that Mary gave birth without labor pains. It is so weird how Orthodox holdout the Immaculate Conception as a stumbling block to reunification because the beliefs are so similar that any Protestant wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. I think Original Sin is the real dividing issue, but I've yet to hear an Orthodox give a correct understanding of Original Sin to begin with.
@@ReasonandTheology What do you mean by this? I am Orthodox and I have heard many talks and catechetical lectures and I have never heard a variety of views. There is only one view. We inherit the consequence of the fall, not the guilt.
@@bradp1983 what original sin actually is and what it’s consequences are - is not agreed upon by the Orthodox Churches due to them lacking a universal magisterium that can definitively bind consciences. There is not one unified view.
@@ReasonandTheology Respectfully, The Orthodox Church does not need a magisterium because we have the Holy Spirit. We agree fully where it must be done. Conciliarity guided by The Holy Spirit works.
Loved this video. However, the part where I disagree the most is that theologies or Roman Catholic and Orthodox are not different. There are difference which are very meaningful to the Orthodoxs that go beyond usual "semantics".
25:15 I've heard this argument a few times from Trent, that if you accept the Resurrection, you have to accept the Marion Apparitions. I'd like to ask why we shouldn't just take it in the other direction, and say maybe we should doubt the Resurrection?
The discussion of the immaculate conception was very confusing for me as an orthodox. I could not discern what you meant by it, such that it would be at all meaningful to speculate whether in the absence of it Mary at any point in her life would have gone to hell if she died? By hell, do you mean Sheol or Gehenna? How do we relate to all the righteous of the Old Covenant, who most certainly were not preserved from the fallen state, but are clearly now in Paradise? I do not clearly see what is meant by the "immaculate conception" without which Mary is precluded from being "full of grace"?
The immaculate conception is about Mary being the new Eve. In order to give her fiat to conceive Christ, she needed to be free of the original sin of the fall of man. The Catholic dogma is that Mary was freed of this sin at her conception. In EO, I've heard multiple views but they still agree that Mary needed to be pure from sin to conceive Christ. I've heard that some Orthodox hold that she was purified at the annunciation while others hold she was purified in the womb of her mother. And all hold that she was free of sin her entire life. In both cases she is said to be delivered from sin by the grace of her son's future sacrifice. Catholics and Orthodox agree on this, and the only difference is in how it is articulated or when it was done. In fact all righteous of the Old Covenant are still saved by Christ's sacrifice as Revelation says he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The Catholic doctrine is that she is full of grace in all moments, but EO seems to say there was a time where she lacked grace.
@@sentjojo We do not say there was a time she lacked grace, nor that she had to be purified at any time in any manner unique to her, such that without so doing, she could not bear Christ. You stated that "She needed to be free of the original sin of the fall of man". As far as I know, this statement doesn't mean anything. At least, it is incoherent as far as orthodox theology goes. How could someone be free or not free of "original sin"? We can be free or not free from the consequence of an original sin, but sin is an act in time, and I don't know what it means to be free of an act that someone else took. Am I free or not free from the fall of the Berlin wall? It seems to be an incoherent question.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa Mary purified in the womb is how I heard it explained directly from an Orthodox Priest. Clearly Orthodox do not have a unified theology because different Orthodox give different explanations. Original Sin in Catholic theology does not refer to a sin of fault but a sin of nature. This is not a sin that any individual caused themselves, but a sin that we inherit from Adam and Eve in the fall. It refers to human nature no longer being in the likeness of God as he originally intended. Or as Thomas Aquinas put it, Original Sin is the privation of Original Justice. Christ restores Original Justice to humanity by giving us a path to salvation.
@@sentjojo Different Orthodox are free to give different explanations, because we have no dogma regarding such a thing as the immaculate conception, but not free to claim any as true. Therefore, to claim any Orthodox view regarding a unique purification of Mary is to go beyond the dogmas ratified by the church. "Sin of nature" is still an incoherent concept as far as I can tell.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa And that is the core issue of Orthodoxy. EO has no way to establish dogma anymore. EO has not had an Ecumenical Council since the schism. And as a result, when issues of theology or heresy arise, EO has no way to settle them. The word "sin" does not refer to an action, although nowadays it is colloquially used to refer to actions. As the Catechism states it, sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience. When things of creation do not align with God's intention, it is a sin. God did not intend for us to have a fallen nature, but we do have a fallen nature. And our fallen nature is called original sin. When Catholics talk of the Immaculate Conception, we are saying Mary was conceived without a fallen nature. She was conceived in original justice, meaning she had a perfect trust of God but still retained her free will.
Hey Michael great response video!!! I would appreciate a more detailed answer to the Father’s quip about if the pope can just remit penance due in purgatory out of love, why doesn’t he. I’ll admit it kind of stung me. I firmly accept the church’s teaching about purgatory and indulgences so I’m not asking out of a gotcha mentality. If I were father I would do everything I could to ease the suffering of my child and bring them closer to God. Since God has given the prerogative of remittance to the church and the pope in particular, why is not simply given to the poor souls in purgatory to speed them to God? Is there a limit to how much remittance the church can simply give out?
One can’t remit another’s penance without repentance on their part. The popes have made the granting of indulgences so abundantly easy to the point that penance is almost a joke. But a person still has to repent. So they kinda have already done what fr Josiah said. It also shows he doesn’t understand the very basics of the discussion around indulgences.
I dont think the issue with the change to the sign of the cross is an east/west thing . I think it was more because Jesus sits at the right hand of The Father so you go to the right shoulder first. It is a mountain out of a mole hill though😂. So is the filioque lol I dont think its a big deal personally.
Where do the ecumenical councils affirm a higher view of the papacy as you claim? Can you provide a quote or citation. You didn't. I can't just take your word for it.
How about any of my videos in the eastern orthodoxy playlist? Start with Agatho's letter to the emperor at the sixth ecumenical council. How about that one?
We must “ Pray “ for , “Christian “ Unity !!! !!! Jesus prayed , That we may be “. ONE “. ✝️. Please help us dear. ( JESUS. ) ✝️ 🙏 👍. A house divided cannot stand. !!! 📿 🙏🙏🙏. 😂. We need Unity, not , Division. !! 🙏🙏🙏. 📿.
Jacob Baradaeus 0 seconds ago Can any Roman apologists here, address why they think that Christ, our Lord and God gave Peter absolute executive authority over the entire church by saying ‘On this Rock…’, when he calls Peter ‘Satan’ a few verses later? Was he really referring to Peter or was he referring to his faith? You can’t have it two different ways.
Good question. Firstly, the first Christians have always recognized the primacy and leadership of the pope and it just takes a bit of research to find all the historical data of the Fathers on the pope. Secondly, name changes are extremely significant in Scripture and have meanings in the name itself. The point is that Christ’s Church is one, and it must be founded on a rock (Peter), a lineage which extends from Francis all the way back to Peter (unbroken papal lineage) that must be without error (as Jesus promised the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His Church). This also indicated that Christ’s Church is real and visible. Christ called Peter, “Satan,” because “Satan,” means adversary or enemy, because Peter rejected the idea of a suffering Christ and this is contrary to the mission of Christ (None of the apostles understood Christ’s mission fully during this time). Protestant, orthodox, regardless can definitely see the leadership Peter had… a). His name being named the most over all apostles’ names combined (it’s not even close to the second apostle mostly named). b). Peter being the one to end the debate and be the final voice at the council of Jerusalem in Acts. c). Peter being always named first when the apostles are named (Judas Iscariot is always last) which is shown to display status. d.) The Jewish typology of the royal steward (ex: Joseph in Genesis) as when the King (Jesus Christ) leaves for a while, the King gives the royal steward the ‘keys to the kingdom’ (quoted from scripture) which is a huge indication of Jewish authority which leaves the steward (Peter) in charge of the kingdom until the King comes back. There is so much more then what I have provided but that is all for me at this moment. I definitely recommend watching Trent Horn on the papacy, or Catholic Truth. Trent Horn had a wonderful discussion with Gospel Simplicity on the papacy. Steve Ray was a hardcore anti-Catholic before he converted and he has very insightful talks on the Papacy. God bless.
If the doctrine of procession from the Son defeats Arianism in a way the unaltered Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed does not, Which Divine Person proceeds from the Holy Spirit in order that He may be shown to be God? It is said thay Pope Benedict XVI struck "Patriarch of Rome" from the nomina of the papal office. The Patriarch of Antioch, as well as that of Rome, is a succesor of Peter. The claim of papal SUPREMACY is never affirmed by the ecumenical councils until Vatican I and Pope Gregory VI (the Great) denies universal jurisdiction. In fact, Pope Gregory writes that a title such as "Universal Priest" is a precursor of antichrist.
Just skipping along to the issue of the immaculate conception... Orthodox definitely do not ascribe to this teaching, just to be clear. As one of our bishops has noted, the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception is "an inadequate answer to an unnecessary question" or something to that effect. Sure, her conception was immaculate, simply because the conception of a person through human sexuality imparts no stain by nature. We differ from the RC's in our understanding of original or ancestral sin and what some call a "sin nature" and this causes us to approach the Theotokos and her sanctity from a different place. She is a human like us, and passes on the Jesus ALL that it means to be a human being. In order for Jesus to be "effective" as a Savior, she must be exactly what we are, passing on to him ALL that a human is, excepting sin which is not a part of us being a "parasite" (you might say). There is no need for a special form of conception for Mary.
You completely ignored everything I said about the IC. And we don’t differ on original sin at the end of the day but the problem is the Dox don’t have a unified view of original sin. Ware was a great guy but his one liners done work anymore. You have to go deeper than this stuff.
We Catholic understand that Adam and Eve created without sins till the fall so as the New Adam and New Eve but we never denied that Mother Mary is a human being like us but still full of grace and there’s an Enmity between Satan and the Woman
Why make all the changes throughout the last 800-1000 years. Even on a regular day change at work or home or whatever causes division. And a division that has no benefit.
I'm not sure what you are talking about. Do you mean Orthodox changes? It's arguable that the Orthodox triumph of Palamism over Barlaamism represented a momentous change. The Barlaamists certainly thought so! And what about changes in praxis? Do you think the earliest Christians had elaborate iconostases or highly developed icons in the High Byzantine (c. 13th-century) style? Hint: Byzantium literally did not exist in the first century. Nor did Byzantine icons or iconostases.
I would disagree in the section about paedocommunion not being a deal breaker. That is one of the things that has made me disdain catholicism more than anything else. That, and that the laity in western rites do not receive the chalice. This was Jan hus' problem with the church, and they burned him. This is not a "meh disciplinary issue" if the Eucharist truly is life-giving, this should be taken more seriously.
@child- eastern rite Catholics admit children to communion right away just like you. Its not a barrier to reunion. Regarding the chalice, parishes make this call. Some people are not as careful as they should be. I’ve received in tincture in the ‘80’s. Seems like a good way, but I do whatever the bishop says.
I've gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed in this video. You guys are way too anemic with your criticisms because of both of your obvious biases for Orthodoxy. For example, when he brought up the Sack of Constantinople in 1204AD, I don't get why you guys didn't mention the Massacre of the Latins that occurred in Constantinople just 20 years prior where Eastern clergy egged on a violent mob killing all the Italian merchants living in Constantinople to also kill Catholic clergy and in the end, 60,000 Catholics were either killed or expelled, including 4,000 who were sold into slavery to the Turks? Maybe I need to be more like you two, but with the amount of disrespect I've received from Orthodox in real life who scoff at ecumenism and disparage the Catholic faith, I can't see Fr. Josiah's talk as anything but a condescending, sneering screed about Orthodox superiority that deserves to be taken apart.
Hindu Trinity Brahma Vishnu and Shiva Christian Trinity Father Son Holy Spirit ISLAM - ALLAH Stop worshipping pagan Trinity. There is only one God ALLAH 😇💟
Absolute nonsense - so who do you think Jesus is? He claimed to be God - that was clearly understood to be the case by the Jewish Chief Priests et al, so either He is part of the Godhead or Christianity is false. If you believe it false, then Daniel, I fear your eternal salvation is in grave danger.
I have a hard time listening to this priest. He talks, or his delivery; he comes off like his is a voice of authority on any topic being discussed by him. He also comes off like he's been Orthodox his whole life, but he's a convert, still holding onto his former anti Catholic heart felt sentiments. I'm a barber, and I used to service a Greek Orthodox Bishop that had knew Padre Josiah Trenham. This Bishop saw him a self righteous Ortho-Dad as opposed to an Ortho-Bro. Having to remind the once protestant Josiah Trenham, that according to Greek Orthodox Cannon Law, Padre and his wife should be observing and practicing sexual abstinence during certain times of the year, and that the padre and wife obviously weren't doing so as evidenced by the amount of children that they had. From my perspective, this man is a part of the problem when it comes to Church Unity. And it seems like these types make up the majority of what we find here in Internet Land.
I’m a Protestant interacting with and learning about the Catholic and Orthodox faiths. This was extremely helpful as it led me to see that there is a lot more charity in views and opinions from the Catholic faith than the Orthodox, even when disagreements boil down to semantic quibbles.
The mystic and monastic side of Orthodoxy has been quite appealing to me, but through my studies, I am just continually blown away by the fullness and consistency of the Catholic faith and subsequent worldview. Thanks for doing a rebuttal, it was quite helpful.
Thank you. And FYI the monastic side of Orthodoxy is where you will find the most vitriol and hatred in these discussions. Odd, right?
God bless. To come to catholicism is an act of faith in christ.
To give up the "freedom" of interpreting however you want and to submit to the papal authority, trusting in jesus promise to guide the church.
Many protestants seem to take the easy way out and go to orthodoxy because papal authority is an act of faith that is hard for protestants who have been taught to be their own Popes.
I hope the holy spirit guides you to whichever is the fullness of the truth
@@awuriefnejqwjmnwn4960 Thank you. Please pray for me and my wife as well. She is pretty much against becoming Catholic so it has definitely been a difficult journey.
You probably see consistency in Catholicism over Orthodoxy more so because protestantism is an offshoot from the Roman Catholic tradition, and the theology you grew up with is steeped in Catholic scholasticism, rather than for the fact that it is actually coherent.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa is it coherent that the Orthodox used to see the bishop of Rome as first among equals but now see the bishop of Constantinople/Istanbul as first. Truly Ephesus II, the “robber council” was when their intent to climb the patriarchal ladder was revealed, by them seeking to be second to Rome over Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. By conflating the seat of the government with the seat of Peter reveals that any excuse will do for a tyrant. What’s more the practice of caeseropapism in Constantinople pretty much said the emperor has dominion over Christ’s body.
Today the patriarch of Constantinople/Istanbul has succeeded in becoming first among equals, but of what? I’ve been to Istanbul. It is heartbreaking to say the very least. Just my opinion, which comes from reading and hearing Orthodox polemics, hate without cause killed Jesus and it’s killing the Church in Istanbul.
Sad to say Fr Josiah was the tip of the iceberg for my moving from EO to Catholicism. I just couldn't take the stirring up stuff from 1200 years ago and trying to make people mad about it now. The historical cherry picking made me start looking at the Catholic side of the argument.
I know what you mean, even though Ive always been Catholic. A reunification of these ancient Churches would go a long way to mitigate confusion for seekers and, as Jesus prayed to the Father, “that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me”.
@SweatinCowboy If he's truly interested in being honest, five minutes of Googling would disabuse him of his misconceptions.
He grossly misrepresents Catholic doctrines. That is neither honest nor edifying.
Haha the opposite is happening to me as a Catholic…he is making me think deeper about things that I haven’t had cause to in the past.
@sweatincowboy4692 LOL. He is grossly misrepresenting what we believe about Purgatory. Period. Believe it or not, we know what we believe better than our critics do.
I've been watching Michael Lofton for years. He is a deep thinker and loves discussing theology. Enjoy watching his channel.
Thank you so much!
@@ReasonandTheology Brother you have been very encouraging to me personally,
The Orthodox admission that, "sure, obviously the Latin Patriarch did act as the final court of appeal in the early church" always strikes me as damaging to their anti papal argument; it implies that at one point the church had an organ of appeal that was lost, fundamentally changing how the ancient faith is governed.
We Orthodox still believe the Patriarch of Rome has a special place of honour. It's just that the current seat is held by a heretic
Specially since they surely could use one right now because of their schism
The pope never had the last say on all things, sure he was appealed to but lots of times they didn't care about what he said, especially at chalcedon given the fact they studied the tome for 3 days to make sure it's Orthodox
@@cnst.33even if one were to grant that everything you said is true, it doesn't address the issue that is raised by Fr. Trenham's statement that it is the ancient tradition of the Church that among the Patriarchates Rome was a final court of appeal. This statement raises the problem that the ancient tradition was for the Church to have a single Bishop who could, at the very least, act as a final court of appeal on some matters, how could any Church without such an organ claim to be adhering to the ancient faith?
@@theodorebarrington How do you jump from that to vatican II papacy
Father Stanley Jaki observed that the path toward VCII ecumenism was opened with the Rebaptism Controversy in the third century. As soon as we determined that heretical and schismatic baptisms are valid -- presuming they have proper form and matter -- then we *ipso facto* acknowledged that Grace exists outside of the visible bounds of the Catholic Church. This is the basis for all true Christian ecumenism.
Moreover, VCII was explicitly responding to changed circumstances, to wit: The original heresiarchs and schismatics were long dead. Meanwhile, their descendants had grown up in Protestantism or Orthodoxy, as the case may be, and that had been their heritage for generations. So, they were far less culpable than their ancestors. In fact, in many cases, they were invincibly ignorant, so they weren't culpable at all.
Changed circumstances demand a response, obviously. Any sane person can see that dogma was not changed at VCII. Rather, we were dealing pastorally and charitably with a completely different denominational landscape. And we were applying the age-old notion of "invincible ignorance" to the modern situation.
@@dianekamer8341 Well said.
@@silveriorebelo2920 Can you cite your source for that? Father Jaki was incredibly erudite and absolutely orthodox. I would have a hard time discounting his views.
@@bethanyann1060 Thank you!
Very interesting insight
Regarding Patriarch of the West, in an early work, then Ratzinger expressed a preference for “Patriarch of the Latin Church,” because there are Eastern (Catholic) Churches in the West and Latin Churches in the East.
Thanks! Trenham says he dropped it because it doesn’t work with papal infallibility. Pure misinformation. B16 notes why it was dropped.
@@ReasonandTheology That's what I don't get. Ten seconds' worth of Googling would give Fr Josiah an accurate answer to this question. Yet apparently he prefers to recycle anti-Catholic slanders rather than looking for the facts -- even though the facts are quickly, readily, and easily accessible. How does this bear any resemblance to arguing in good faith?
Always remember: The Immaculate Conception isn't a modern proposition but the Orthodox notion that it's a heresy is.
Absolutely true. In fact, Irenaeus's depiction of Mary as the New Eve encapsulates the Dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
And, as Dr. James Likoudis has shown, before Pope Pius IX defined the dogma in 1854, the Orthodox had no real problem with it. There were entire Orthodox confraternities in 19th-century Russia dedicated to defending the Immaculate Conception *to the death!*
But as soon as the Church defined the IC dogma, suddenly the more intransigent Orthodox had all kinds of objections. Because Heaven forfend they should agree with us Catholics about *anything.*
Any Orthodox person saying it’s a heresy doesn’t understand what a heresy is or why the Orthodox Church reserves that nuke for things that need nuking. False teaching? Ok. At best a theologumenon? Fine. An understandable mistake engendered by St Augustine’s fundamental misunderstanding of Original Sin (rooted in his inability to read Greek)? Even better. Heresy? Nope.
Its a Roman innovation to make Immaculate Conception dogma. The Orthodox understanding of Ancestral Sin does not require an Immaculate Conception.
@@bradp1983 Then why did the so-called Orthodox Church have no problem with the notion until the 19th century?
@@bradp1983 Actually, it's this whole Ancestral-versus-Original-Sin polemic that's the innovation. It basically comes from Romanides. The Fathers overwhelmingly affirmed Original Sin. And as for the Immaculate Conception, it's implicit in Irenaeus's teaching about Mary as the New Eve. Just as Eve was created sinless, so was Mary. But unlike Eve, Mary remained sinless. This is affirmed as early as 180 AD.
I looked at EO carefully once I, as a Lutheran, came to the conclusion that Sola Scriptura was totally unbiblical. EO is attractive to Prots, IMHO, because it has the mindset of Protestantism. Being "against Rome" is the siren call. Fr. Josiah's arguments may seem plausible...but they just don't cut it. History and facts are stubborn things. I'm glad our EO brothers and sisters have valid sacraments. Hopefully many of them will come home to Rome.
Agreed
Amen!!!
Orthodoxy has a completely different mindset than either Catholicism or Protestantism. Please read the book "Thinking Orthodox" by Jeannie Constantinou. There is no need to "come home to Rome" for an Orthodox Christian. We are already home. Historically Rome was but 1 of 5 of the original Patriarchates.
@@bradp1983 she is a horrible resource when she engages Catholicism. It is almost comical. And yes one of five patriarchs. Sure. But this one out of the five was established by Christ and is essential to the church’s constitution. See my answering Eastern Orthodoxy playlist and my papacy playlist. Also I’m not buying the different mindset caricature that some in the East paint. Thanks for your comment.
@@ReasonandTheology How is she a horrible resource? A priest's wife, highly credentialed, and cradle Orthodox. The mindset is definitely different than Protestant and Catholic. Who would you say best represents Orthodoxy and carries the Orthodox phronema?
I like the Lofton, Horn dissecting duo, nicely done & informative. I can't help but notice a strong similarity w/ the Schism & Protest..& some petty issues unfortunately & they only seem to help the holy Catholic Church
Thanks
I'm increasingly convinced the best way for me to find the truth of God, is to pray, confess, and repent. I don't do a good job at those things, but I hope I can keep focusing on it to do it better step by step. I struggle with phone and UA-cam addiction, eating up my time and sleep. Please pray for me.
First-I really enjoy your channel and how you keep it charitable and factual.
I was listening to this video while doing yard work with phone in my pocket. When I pulled my phone out of my pocket, I had a message that my feedback had been sent, and if it was deemed offensive, they would report it. I did not intend to send that so if you see a report of some sort against this channel from me, it was an accident. I tried to be out how to revoke it and I couldn’t. My apologies!!! You do a fantastic job and absolutely nothing offensive is happening!
No problem. Thanks for watching.
@@robertotapia8086 I listen to Catholic channels when I’m cooking, doing housework etc and even when I’m driving in between prayers.
Travelling to Mass I have just enough time to do a Scriptural Rosary by sitting in my car and finishing the last half of the last decade.
Then on my way home I have enough time to do the Chaplet for the Holy Souls.
It’s a great way to pray when you are driving a familiar route so can multi task by focusing on your prayer and driving.
My Parish Priest (who was a Franciscan of the Immaculata prior to working with students at a university as Chaplin and then after 2 Parishes of his own) is a big advocate of getting people to increase their prayer life so we are praying unceasingly and that we can achieve this by praying while we do chores or drive. But he also says praying unceasingly isn’t just kneeling down to pray - that when we read Scripture or listen to videos/read books to deepen our faith/learn more about the faith/learn about the virtues to apply them etc that is also classed as praying as we are increasing our connection and relationship with God.
He also counselled me that even if you are walking along as realise you are surrounded by something beautiful or that you were graced by a beautiful soul even for a moment directing yourself to see God in it and saying a quick prayer of “thank you God for the beauty you have surrounded me with” - your thoughts about ‘wow it’s amazing God made this and your quick prayer is adding to you praying unceasingly. So he told me that if I can’t at the moment pray or focus on praying to just enjoy the time and be with God thinking about him.
I’ve told several people about this online when they’ve asked how they are meant to increase their prayer life when life can’t allow them to stop and get on their knees. They all typically realise that they have been praying a lot more than they first thought.
I wonder if it’s a failure in catechising because I don’t remember ever being told that praying is much more that just hitting your knees and that God isn’t legalistic in that if you aren’t on your knees when praying He won’t accept the prayer.
@@irishandscottish1829 thank you for your beautiful post! You've given us some really helpful ideas on increasing prayer life. I believe it is a failure in teaching as I too do not recall every being told that listening to such teachings is counted as prayer and I grew up in the 90s when we did have audio cassettes of preaching which would've counted as prayer. My 2 cents is that the Church had strayed too far from the mystical side of things and now so many of us are being called to model Jesus in our day to day lives. God bless you and may the Holy Spirit guide you all the days of your life.
@@alisterrebelo9013 from my understanding of what my Priest said he said listening to videos/reading books on the faith could as prayer when we are actively getting something from it that will make our understanding of the faith and love of God deeper.
I know myself when I listen to different videos like the Dominican monks from Godsplaining who this Easter have been going through the gifts of the Holy Spirit it’s deepened my prayer life as I’ve learnt of the gifts better/had a refresher of them so when I pray to God I can ask for specific gifts for the Holy Spirit to fill me with when I know I’m lacking in them more than others or I want to increase a certain one more
I think it’s probably about getting the right balance so when combining all these it increases our prayer life.
As he told me that while praying while driving/doing chores is a good thing we still have to make time for prayers on our knees where we can give God 100% devotion.
Trent said something to the effect of "in the case of reunification, Catholics would not seek the destruction of the treasures of the East." this is true. but in my experience, in any reunification with the Eastern Orthodox, they would seek the destruction of the treasures of the West. I never get the impression they think we have any treasures to begin with.
Yep and you can see that in their hatred of their western rite churches.
For all the supposed hatred of the western rite, more and more WR churches are popping up around the US...
Well said. Fr. Josiah's video perfectly proves that with his total disdain for western disciplines. Very rarely do I ever hear that sort of thing from the other sides.
Oh man, is that ever true.
In my lay opinion: The treasure we lost is the Catholicity required for the Apostolic succession to function properly. The body of Christ lost its dominant hand (not its head). The problems of the East (mostly due to reticence to make declarations) would have been tempered by the West’s juridical nature. And the West’s penchant for theological innovations and de-traditionalizing chicanery (which, you are correct, we do not view as treasures) would have been corrected by the steadfastness of the rest of the Apostolic church.
He sounds like some Protestants in the South.
What happened to the Churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria or Constantinople? I know Rome is alive and kicking!...
@@jonatasmachado7217 so are the others, my friend.
@@jesseshooter4403 Kyiv and Moscow are alive and killing each other...
@@LightOfAllMankind evangelicals are alive and dividing
That is exactly what he is. Southern Fundagelical with Smells and Bells. With all his anti-Catholic baggage intact,
Fr. Josiah presented very clear arguments and substantial evidence to support them. Your channel also provided an argument but it’s a bit insincere to say you’ve refuted him. At best this is a agree to disagree.
@Michael, the direction of the sign of the cross, from left to right, like Roman Catholics, is practised by Oriental Orthodox like the Copts, Amernians, Syriacs and Ethiopians, and a Coptic priest told me the direction in which way the sign of the cross is traced is not a matter of dogma.
Yea it is not a matter of dogma. Discipline.
7min-8min your right about middle eastern Catholics and middle eastern orthodox
Sharing in sacred things,and it's happening today as well and alot in my community.
I grew up in a Lebanese community of a few hundred families I would say over 80 percent are Catholic and 20 percent orthodox,
In the month of may each year we get a mariam statue from either Rome, Lordes etc etc and the statue will rotate around each person's home where we would all get together every night for rosary with the priest and all the orthodox families would join in.
Also when we have arabic mass(once or twice a month) in our country town celebrated by a Catholic Priest at the locals NO church, just about each and every one of the orthodox attend...
Also when someone passed away we mostly would have a Catholic and orthodox priest at the church together.(something I really disagree with personally)
And all the orthodox families sent their children to Catholic schools growing and most if not all the children attend Catholic Church for their Sunday obligation...
Also just 3 month ago a Lebanese orthodox man passed away in the community and his orthodox priests chose to do the funeral service at the local Catholic Church (NO) which is only 5 minutes away from his families home where as the closest orthodox church was 30minutes away. I attended the funeral service, and I heard later on in the day mass was celebrated by them at our church (which I strongly disagree with)
Also 2 month ago when my grandma passed at the hospital our Catholic
Priest gave her last rights, and then an orthodox priest came just after she had passed and believe or not he prayed and lead the rosary with us while we where around her. I didn't allow at her funeral though for anyone but a catholic priest alone to do the funeral service...
I personally am strongly against any priest that isn't a priest in full communion and union with the Holy Father (Holy see) to be anywhere close to the Altar of the Lord.
*last Rite
This is something I’ve encountered in Eastern Catholic churches here in the states, particularly the more ethnic ones - the priests will often say their parishioners and parishioners from local Orthodox parishes inter-commune without giving it a second thought. They tell me about how their parishioners often receive communion at Orthodox churches and vice-versa, and how nobody involved really has a problem with it.
Woah this is very similar to me but opposite. We are majority Roum. I do feel the same as you though I wouldn’t want a priest in communion with the pope at our alter. It wouldn’t be appropriate.
How good it is to see the two of you together! I am so glad YT decided to offer this episode to me today.
I pray often for the reunification of the two sides. I think the differences are so small that reunification is just a matter of humility and charity.
Maybe at one point this was true, but too much time has passed and there have been too many Roman innovations to reconcile at this point. It would take repentance on the part of the Roman Church to repent of her error and submit herself to the normal collegial hierarchical ecclesial structure. I would love for there to be One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church that includes the Roman Patriarchate again, but Rome would have to bend her neck in humility, repent, and accept her rightful status as an equal to the other Patriarchates.
@@bradp1983 That's the thing. There is no error in the Catholic Church. One Bishop has always had primacy over the others since the very beginning of Christianity. Saying otherwise is simply erroneous. So, thinking the Catholic Church is in error is an error in itself, one born out of not being humble [go figure]. It is the true magisterium of faith. The Church will reunify once the Orthodox patriarchates are cleaned from pride and become humble again. Some of them have already done it, let that sink in for a minute.
@@bradp1983even IF I agreed with you and I don't, imagine what things would have been like if the 'objectors' from the EO and the Reformation had instead stayed to reform the Church from within. The solution is NEVER further breakup the body of Christ (on earth) further because of oversized ego and pride. To me, two major sins were committed, one is rejecting Christ's establishing the Church on Peter and the other is breaking the command to stay united. I pray for us to be reunited again, Mary has been warning us about the chastisement to come. We need to be united and face it together. Pray more and in every spare moment, I love you my brother in Christ.
@@zeroisnine Orthodox are not sanctimonious puritans. To commune unworthily is to damn yourself so we wouldn't want that. It is a big deal to receive the Body and Blood of our Lord. Even Orthodox Christians that haven't prepared should not receive the Eucharist. Truthfully none of us are worthy, but we are made worthy by the Grace of our Lord when we repent and prepare our hearts and minds. Not sure if this is what you are referring to or not, but we ascribe to different core beliefs about the Trinity via filioque and we have a different Ecclesiological structure than the Roman Catholic Church so how could we be in communion?
@@alisterrebelo9013 Literally what the Reformers tried to do.
As someone trying to discern between the two Faiths. This may be the deal-breaker for me, or at the very least a significant push towards Catholicism. I have a few other objections I am working through, but thank you guys for the hard work! ❤
Get a second opinion. This is misleading. One YT video from a one-sided out of context perspective isn't it.
@@bradp1983 This wasn't the only thing I have listened to, investigated or studied... This just kinda was a push over the edge. The straw that may have broke the camel's back. More to study, I plan on trying to investigate Orthodoxy more so, but The evidence is leaning hards toward Catholicism.
Welcome home soon, hopefully
WHERE PETER IS, THERE IS WHERE THE CHURCH IS
UBI EST PETRUS, IBI ECCLESIA EST
@@joeisaac2358 dont do the capslock spam brother, this just throws people off even if you are correct
I really wanted to give the EO church a try… I just didn’t see the love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, etc. that you’d expect to see in Christ’s true church. And I saw mostly converts that were just as anti-Catholic as Protestants. Sorry, but it’s the see of Peter for me! 🇻🇦
Yeah the papacy is the real breaker.
Sorry you didn't find the people you were looking for. I will say that it sometimes depends on the particular parish. I have been in three parishes now, and two of them are the kindest people you will ever encounter. The Church is a hospital for sinners. Also, not trying to be rude but why would you go to an Orthodox Church and be surprised that the people there aren't "Pro-Catholic"? We Orthodox ARE Catholic, but we aren't Roman.
@@bradp1983 He didn't say "not pro-Catholic." He said "anti-Catholic." There's a huge difference.
Our local Methodists are not particularly pro-Catholic. But they aren't rabidly, vitriolically, relentlessly anti-Catholic, either.
Most Online Orthobros are all of the latter.
It's what von Balthazar called the "Anti Mentality." And it leads to what someone else has called "self-definition via negation." Sometimes it seems like: If y'all couldn't define yourselves against *us,* could you define yourselves at all?
Now, our local cradle-dominant Greek Orthodox community does seem much more irenic, thank God. But even they showcase vitriolically anti-Catholic books in the Agora at the annual Greek Festival.
NO Catholic parish would *ever* do something like that. We consider ourselves the One True Church, but we don't spend all our time bashing other churches. Especially not yours! Our tract racks in the narthex aren't filled with pamphlets denouncing the Eastern Orthodox. It's a whole different approach -- positive, not negative.
BTW, in the case of converts to Orthodoxy: Many of them come from Protestant evangelical traditions steeped in anti-Catholic bigotry. When they become Orthodox, they bring all that anti-Catholic baggage with them. And it's more than just tolerated in their new communion. It's welcomed! Plus, they also get to be anti-Western. Two "anti" mentalities for the price of one! What's not to like? /sarc
@@dianekamer8341 It's really a distinction without a difference. Most Orthodox are not wasting too much time bashing Catholics, but if you ask why are the Catholics wrong on this or that issues or what is the difference between the Catholic position and the Orthodox position they can probably list a few reasons. That isn't really anti-Catholic as it is just telling the truth as an Orthodox would see it. Most Orthodox would rather not need to waste time doing such unprofitable things.
He’s also wrong to say that Latins are baptized without chrism. That’s not true. The priest uses chrism after the water. In the West, there were two post-baptismal anointings, the second given by the bishop, which is how it got delayed after massive conversions following the edict of Milan.
Yeah, but I think he means chrism without confirmation but I caught that too.
A biblical verse sheds a great deal of light on this subject......."By their fruits ye shall know them".
I think in light of this verse the Orthodox Churches far outshine the Roman Catholic Church today.
I think it's telling that I'm always pleasantly surprised when I hear an Orthodox Christian being charitable to the Western church's views. Even if they disagree and favor the Orthodox position its a breath of fresh air to hear someone like Ed Siecienski or Kallistos Ware. Conversely I'm always a bit surprised when I hear a Catholic being uncharitable toward the Orthodox, it happens here and there but much less likely in my experience.
That is precisely my experience as well, stretching over many years of online interaction.
In Real Life it seems to be different. Our local Greek Orthodox (mostly cradles) seem pretty irenic and ecumenical.
@@dianekamer8341 oh yeah I have family who are Orthodox and lovely people. I'm really talking about some intellectuals, clergy and monks who seem to really stretch our differences as much as possible to the point of it being a bit silly. I once saw an Antiochian church claim in their FAQ that there is "more that divides us (Catholics/Orthodox) than we have in common." I'm not saying there aren't some important points of disagreement but that claim is over the top.
@@kevinninja787 Could not agree more!!!
but why not western church (cathoolic) being charitable to the east's. most often it is come home to Rome, but why not the other way.
The Schism SHOULDN’T happened and yet what is the church that doesn’t work towards getting back together? We will be accountable with God one day for not trying to fix this separation of HIS church
God alone is the judge, but it would be very hard for me to believe that Fr. Josiah’s rejection of the Papacy is uninformed.
I'm orthodox myself, but to call the Filioque "The crown of all evils" is just completely nonsensical. Anyone who thinks that saying the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is the supreme evil, has no idea what real evil looks like.
"Evil" can mean "indicating future misfortune", not necessarily morally wrong. So calling it the crown of all evils is actually true, because the filioque does indeed lead to more issues widening the schism later on.
Thanks for re-uploading this!!!
Thanks
Hello there, I'm so glad you made this video! I'm a Catholic and I watched Fr. Josiah's video a couple years ago and took him at face value to a certain degree. I didn't think he was this far off in many aspects. At one point in my life I was thinking of becoming Orthodox. Have you guys ever seen the Journey Home show with guest James Likoudis? He was a (Greek) Orthodox convert to the Catholic church and that show really helped me remain in the Catholic church and will always remain there.
I've seen that show! Dr Likoudis is great!
Is Roman Catholicism a misnomer? There is the Latin rite but the Church is just One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, no?
Yes it is.
The term Roman Catholic was used as an insult in England by the Anglicans who wanted to be called Catholic.
They coined the term “Roman Catholic” to distinguish those in union with Rome from themselves so they could refer to themselves as Catholics (by attempting to deprive actual Catholics to the right to the term).
The earliest form was the noun “Romanist” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which appeared in England about 1515-1525. The next to develop was the adjective “Romish” (similar to something done or believed in the Catholic Church), which appeared around 1525-1535. Next came the noun “Roman Catholic” (one belonging to the Catholic Church), which was coined around 1595-1605. Shortly thereafter came the verb “to Romanize” (to make someone a Catholic or to become a Catholic), which appeared around 1600-10. Between 1665 and 1675 we got the noun “Romanism” (the system of Catholic beliefs and practices), and finally we got a latecomer term about 1815-1825, the noun “Roman Catholicism,” a synonym for the earlier “Romanism.”
@Zenex
Yes that’s mostly right, western Catholics belong to the Latin church which use the Roman Rite. 99% of the time when someone says the “Roman Catholic Church” it’s a misnomer and exhibits some level of ignorance, if not maliciousness. You could potentially use the term Roman Catholic to merely differentiate from eastern Catholics, just for the sake of brevity. But we all collectively belong to the Catholic Church,
WHAT DOES CATHOLIC MEAN ,
@@vesnanuspahic7510 that is not what they are asking.
They are asking if calling Latin Rite Catholics ‘Roman Catholics’ is correct or not.
If you read my reply and another you will see we tell them they are correct and that ROMAN Catholic is not what the Latin Rite is
@@irishandscottish1829 Alternatively, you're just gatekeeping the term "Catholic" from Catholics who are not going along with the papacy's nonsense but still want to be part of the true Church. I don't have much of a dog in the race myself, since I'm not even sure if I'll stay in the faith, but you should ideally recognise other people's perspectives and nuance.
I always understood that the unleavened bread reminds us of the unleavened bread the israelites made in their hurry to flee Egypt . They had no time to waste for the dough to rise .
Most likely Jesus used unleavened bread at the Last Supper.
It'd also profoundly Paschal: "Christ our *Passover* is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the Feast."
The Last Supper was a Passover meal. That is what we are re-presenting .
IMHO the EO charge that we're "judaizing" betrays a deeply ingrained and highly problematical anti-Semitism pervasive in Orthodox culture.
We understand leaven as associated with the Kingdom of Heaven and appropriate for The Eucharist. The Eucharist was leavened in both East and West in the beginning. The West started using unleavened bread as early as 7th century but Roman Catholic priest Joseph Jungmann says it began in 11th century.
@@bradp1983 apparently there is a debated question about leavened or unleavened bread. The important thing is that the difference of usage should be of little dogmatic importance.
The practice of the apostles does not establish this conclusively. Most probably they made use of whatever bread was at hand, leavened or fermented. Different customs began to group in different localities. Eastern churches (this is before the schism) for the most part used leavened bread. Western churches preferred unleavened. At the time of the Schism the difference gave rise to much discussion of the value and fomented controversy.
In any case it is interesting to know why the Catholic Churches are using unleavened bread. I do not know when this became official though. Events become more clear as time passes. Pope JPll explained once that dogmas do not change but evolve as time goes by. Compare it to the seed of an apple tree . The seed becomes a tree but it is still an apple tree, not another tree.
As you know ,the New Testament fulfils the Old Testament. The last Supper of Christ Jesus is instituting the New Covenant to the Apostles. HE is the New and True Lamb of God. The Old Testament Passover is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. The Passover is remembered by the slaughter of the lamb and one week of unleavened bread.
Why was the bread unleavened? In their haste to leave Egypt, the Israelites could not let their bread rise and so they brought unleavened bread.
Therefore the symbolism of the Kingdom of Heaven for leavened bread is very nice and there is nothing wrong with it and does not change the validity of the consecrated host. Using the unleavened bread which is attached to the events of the Passover (slaughtering a lamb and unleavened bread), in the Eucharist and wine. which is Christ as the Passover Lamb who was sacrificed for the sins of the world , fulfilling the events of the Old Testament is the CENTER and most important Teaching of the Church is in fact deeper and truer to the events which all of us have learned of, being the Passover and the last Supper of Christ.
@@bradp1983 Both are valid. Both are appropriate. Both are permissible. Jesus Himself undoubtedly used unleavened bread at the Last Supper. You can't get any more ancient and traditional than that. This is not a church-dividing issue.
The schism hurts my heart. Jesus' prayer that his followers would be one is something that weighs heavy on me. As a Catholic (a new Catholic mind you), it feels like we're so so close to one another. I get that there are some serious issues to work out. But the Orthodox feel more like estranged brothers than excommunicated (completely out) people. If I understand right, the formal excommunications have been lifted on the Catholic side.
The positive thing is that the Popes since the Council have done more to help heal the schism than in the past 500 years. I try to remember to pray for reunification with each Rosary
There is alot of hatred in the orthodox communities, people growing up with horror stories about catholic crimes.
Those who preach hate will expose themselves for being antichrists, our answer can only be to be as lamblike as we can be and reject hatred entirely
Both sides have lifted it. The Othodox excommunication was against 1 person not the whole Church.
I watched this a few days ago.
I just could not stop thinking about that first point that he made about 1054 not being the year of the schism.
Right out of the gate he brings up something that nobody today had anything to do with. That is why EO didnt appeal to me, there seemed to be an Indignant attitude towards Catholics, at least in alot of the stuff on youtube. It seems to be based less on theology amd more on, "hey look at what, "the latins" did to us."
Then you didn't look deep enough into it. I was a RC. I mean my family literally came from Italy and Ireland. I can tell you it's much deeper than that. There's lots of points of contention. But it is convenient in trying to make small of "look what the Latins did to us". I mean it's literally the Latins who imposed torture devices, inquisitions, total purges of populations, and of course; the 4th crusade. But that's not even the beef. The beef is in the dogma and for some former Catholics like myself; the dark truth of child abuse going back centuries. The fact John Paul II knew about it and did nothing to stop it. The fact you have so many clergy that deserve to be brought to justice for their crimes and were protected in the Vatican, and of course the idea of Papal Infallibility; especially after all I just listed
I always feel uncomfortable with the Orthodox once they start on Catholicism. This priest is very arrogant , I must say.
I think he came across as arrogant, (but I don't know his intentions) and needs to be less certain of the misinformation he offered.
@harleymann2086 :( Please try making more substantive arguments. This is hurtful, and insensitive towards our convert brothers some of whom have a much more Catholic mind than I.
@Harley Mann He certainly sounds like a fundamentalist Protestant when he completely misrepresents Purgatory. How hard would it be to take 10 seconds to find out what Catholics actually believe? Has Fr Trenham never heard of Google? Good grief.
And oh my gosh, WRT the Sign of the Cross: Can he get any pettier? And yes, *re* baptism, he sounds exactly like an Independent Fundamental Baptist.
The schism really is a shame. I do like Fr. Josiah, and have found many of his videos to be spiritually edifying. But as is common with the Orthodox, once the topic turns to Catholicism or Russian history/politics, everything goes south.
@harleymann2086 You made the accusation, you should substantiate it. Or as debaters would say, the burden of proof is on you. I shouldn't have to disprove random claims. True or otherwise.
Im glad you and Trent Horn are covering this. I watched the original video a couple times when I was looking into Eastern Orthodoxy.
Been looking forward to this one for a long while!!!
I found the quote mentioned at 1:54:55. At the first Council of Nicea the one eyed and celibate Paphnitius convincingly opposed clerical celibacy (possibly a proposed canon) and the council agreed. This is found in: The Faith of the Early Fathers by William Jurgens, volume 1 and page 280. I purchased this book in a Catholic bookstore.
On the 4th Crusade: as wicked as that was, let's not forget the fact that the Catholics in Constantinople were massacred and had to flee the city a few decades before that siege.
01:48:30 there are different traditions of fasting in the Catholic world indeed; I use to fast on Wednesdays, Fridays and Saturdays, but these are more local ways of doing it, voluntary forms.
Tbf, the massacre was in response to Vencecians taking over the economy of Constantinople with the Emperor giving them preferential treatment over local merchants, and was strongly condemned by the Emperor after.
Amazing!
Thanks
It is good that the RCC finally recognized 400 years after the Council of Florence that the fire of hell/purgatory is not material fire.
Love to see you guys 🙏🛐💯 Catholic 🗝️🗝️
I've heard a non-denominational Evangelical argue that the Nicean-Constantinopolitan Creed is illegitimate because it violates the restrictions of Ephesus. He describes himself as a Nicean Christian because he sticks to the original creed, implying if not stating outright that every council after Nicea I was illegitimate. Of course that conflicts with how the Council of Constantinople came before Ephesus and so gave the formula before the restrictions and so wouldn't be under the anathemas anyway, but since Ephesus insisted on Nicea I's formulation, he would probably just dismiss that point. The Orthodox really need to look at the timeline and consider the logical implications of their position with "adding to the creed."
Correct, the Council of Constantinople in 381 added to the Nicene Creed. At Ephesus in 431 AD, the Creed was recited in the original form as stated at Nicea in 325. The Filioque was taught by Saint Hillary of Poitiers and Saint Augustine well before Chalcedon in 451 AD which affirmed the additions to the Nicene Creed at the Constantinople in 381 AD. Pope Leo the Great also affirmed the Filioque and nobody said he was unorthodox at Chalcedon 451 AD.
Sister Lucia never said any such thing. She said Russia would become *Eastern Catholic.* I'm sorry, but Father Josiah seems to be misrepresenting here.
If you deny the possibility of directly experiencing God via Divine, Uncreated Grace, then no human can ever experience/know the Uncreated God directly, but only know about God via some crrated experience. But, according to St. Gregory Palamas, we may experience the Uncreated God by sharing in Uncreated Grace.
Keep in mind that Fr Josiah was raised and educated in reformed theology (Presbyterian) so he had a fundamental bias against Catholics which influences his beliefs.
I've heard Orthodox priests say that Mary was purified of sin while still in the womb of her mother. Orthodox obviously hold to Mary being sinless throughout life. I've heard Fr. Trenham himself say that Mary gave birth without labor pains. It is so weird how Orthodox holdout the Immaculate Conception as a stumbling block to reunification because the beliefs are so similar that any Protestant wouldn't be able to tell you the difference. I think Original Sin is the real dividing issue, but I've yet to hear an Orthodox give a correct understanding of Original Sin to begin with.
They don’t have a unified view on original sin.
@@ReasonandTheology What do you mean by this? I am Orthodox and I have heard many talks and catechetical lectures and I have never heard a variety of views. There is only one view. We inherit the consequence of the fall, not the guilt.
@@bradp1983 what original sin actually is and what it’s consequences are - is not agreed upon by the Orthodox Churches due to them lacking a universal magisterium that can definitively bind consciences. There is not one unified view.
@@ReasonandTheology Respectfully, The Orthodox Church does not need a magisterium because we have the Holy Spirit. We agree fully where it must be done. Conciliarity guided by The Holy Spirit works.
We believe in ancestral sin not original sin
I thought the Pope excommunicated AFTER the disaster. I did not know they were already excommunicated.
Loved this video. However, the part where I disagree the most is that theologies or Roman Catholic and Orthodox are not different. There are difference which are very meaningful to the Orthodoxs that go beyond usual "semantics".
They aren’t substantially different as we share the same Scripture and Tradition.
@@ReasonandTheology yet different enough to cuase the schism ? Papal authority is a big one no ?
This is not a refutation. It is barely a commentary. False advertisement.
25:15 I've heard this argument a few times from Trent, that if you accept the Resurrection, you have to accept the Marion Apparitions. I'd like to ask why we shouldn't just take it in the other direction, and say maybe we should doubt the Resurrection?
A shoutout for Fr. Joseph Gill's 2 books on the Council of Florence:
The Council of Florence
Personalities of the Council of Florence
The discussion of the immaculate conception was very confusing for me as an orthodox. I could not discern what you meant by it, such that it would be at all meaningful to speculate whether in the absence of it Mary at any point in her life would have gone to hell if she died? By hell, do you mean Sheol or Gehenna? How do we relate to all the righteous of the Old Covenant, who most certainly were not preserved from the fallen state, but are clearly now in Paradise? I do not clearly see what is meant by the "immaculate conception" without which Mary is precluded from being "full of grace"?
The immaculate conception is about Mary being the new Eve. In order to give her fiat to conceive Christ, she needed to be free of the original sin of the fall of man. The Catholic dogma is that Mary was freed of this sin at her conception. In EO, I've heard multiple views but they still agree that Mary needed to be pure from sin to conceive Christ. I've heard that some Orthodox hold that she was purified at the annunciation while others hold she was purified in the womb of her mother. And all hold that she was free of sin her entire life.
In both cases she is said to be delivered from sin by the grace of her son's future sacrifice. Catholics and Orthodox agree on this, and the only difference is in how it is articulated or when it was done. In fact all righteous of the Old Covenant are still saved by Christ's sacrifice as Revelation says he is the lamb slain before the foundation of the world. The Catholic doctrine is that she is full of grace in all moments, but EO seems to say there was a time where she lacked grace.
@@sentjojo We do not say there was a time she lacked grace, nor that she had to be purified at any time in any manner unique to her, such that without so doing, she could not bear Christ. You stated that "She needed to be free of the original sin of the fall of man". As far as I know, this statement doesn't mean anything. At least, it is incoherent as far as orthodox theology goes. How could someone be free or not free of "original sin"? We can be free or not free from the consequence of an original sin, but sin is an act in time, and I don't know what it means to be free of an act that someone else took. Am I free or not free from the fall of the Berlin wall? It seems to be an incoherent question.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa Mary purified in the womb is how I heard it explained directly from an Orthodox Priest. Clearly Orthodox do not have a unified theology because different Orthodox give different explanations.
Original Sin in Catholic theology does not refer to a sin of fault but a sin of nature. This is not a sin that any individual caused themselves, but a sin that we inherit from Adam and Eve in the fall. It refers to human nature no longer being in the likeness of God as he originally intended. Or as Thomas Aquinas put it, Original Sin is the privation of Original Justice. Christ restores Original Justice to humanity by giving us a path to salvation.
@@sentjojo Different Orthodox are free to give different explanations, because we have no dogma regarding such a thing as the immaculate conception, but not free to claim any as true. Therefore, to claim any Orthodox view regarding a unique purification of Mary is to go beyond the dogmas ratified by the church. "Sin of nature" is still an incoherent concept as far as I can tell.
@@PhilosophyOfNoa And that is the core issue of Orthodoxy. EO has no way to establish dogma anymore. EO has not had an Ecumenical Council since the schism. And as a result, when issues of theology or heresy arise, EO has no way to settle them.
The word "sin" does not refer to an action, although nowadays it is colloquially used to refer to actions. As the Catechism states it, sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience. When things of creation do not align with God's intention, it is a sin. God did not intend for us to have a fallen nature, but we do have a fallen nature. And our fallen nature is called original sin.
When Catholics talk of the Immaculate Conception, we are saying Mary was conceived without a fallen nature. She was conceived in original justice, meaning she had a perfect trust of God but still retained her free will.
Hey Michael great response video!!! I would appreciate a more detailed answer to the Father’s quip about if the pope can just remit penance due in purgatory out of love, why doesn’t he. I’ll admit it kind of stung me. I firmly accept the church’s teaching about purgatory and indulgences so I’m not asking out of a gotcha mentality. If I were father I would do everything I could to ease the suffering of my child and bring them closer to God. Since God has given the prerogative of remittance to the church and the pope in particular, why is not simply given to the poor souls in purgatory to speed them to God? Is there a limit to how much remittance the church can simply give out?
One can’t remit another’s penance without repentance on their part. The popes have made the granting of indulgences so abundantly easy to the point that penance is almost a joke. But a person still has to repent. So they kinda have already done what fr Josiah said. It also shows he doesn’t understand the very basics of the discussion around indulgences.
I dont think the issue with the change to the sign of the cross is an east/west thing . I think it was more because Jesus sits at the right hand of The Father so you go to the right shoulder first. It is a mountain out of a mole hill though😂. So is the filioque lol I dont think its a big deal personally.
Where do the ecumenical councils affirm a higher view of the papacy as you claim? Can you provide a quote or citation. You didn't. I can't just take your word for it.
How about any of my videos in the eastern orthodoxy playlist? Start with Agatho's letter to the emperor at the sixth ecumenical council. How about that one?
We must “ Pray “ for , “Christian “ Unity !!! !!! Jesus prayed , That we may be “. ONE “. ✝️. Please help us dear. ( JESUS. ) ✝️ 🙏 👍. A house divided cannot stand. !!! 📿 🙏🙏🙏. 😂. We need Unity, not , Division. !! 🙏🙏🙏. 📿.
Jacob Baradaeus
0 seconds ago
Can any Roman apologists here, address why they think that Christ, our Lord and God gave Peter absolute executive authority over the entire church by saying ‘On this Rock…’, when he calls Peter ‘Satan’ a few verses later? Was he really referring to Peter or was he referring to his faith? You can’t have it two different ways.
Good question. Firstly, the first Christians have always recognized the primacy and leadership of the pope and it just takes a bit of research to find all the historical data of the Fathers on the pope. Secondly, name changes are extremely significant in Scripture and have meanings in the name itself. The point is that Christ’s Church is one, and it must be founded on a rock (Peter), a lineage which extends from Francis all the way back to Peter (unbroken papal lineage) that must be without error (as Jesus promised the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His Church). This also indicated that Christ’s Church is real and visible. Christ called Peter, “Satan,” because “Satan,” means adversary or enemy, because Peter rejected the idea of a suffering Christ and this is contrary to the mission of Christ (None of the apostles understood Christ’s mission fully during this time). Protestant, orthodox, regardless can definitely see the leadership Peter had… a). His name being named the most over all apostles’ names combined (it’s not even close to the second apostle mostly named). b). Peter being the one to end the debate and be the final voice at the council of Jerusalem in Acts. c). Peter being always named first when the apostles are named (Judas Iscariot is always last) which is shown to display status.
d.) The Jewish typology of the royal steward (ex: Joseph in Genesis) as when the King (Jesus Christ) leaves for a while, the King gives the royal steward the ‘keys to the kingdom’ (quoted from scripture) which is a huge indication of Jewish authority which leaves the steward (Peter) in charge of the kingdom until the King comes back. There is so much more then what I have provided but that is all for me at this moment. I definitely recommend watching Trent Horn on the papacy, or Catholic Truth. Trent Horn had a wonderful discussion with Gospel Simplicity on the papacy. Steve Ray was a hardcore anti-Catholic before he converted and he has very insightful talks on the Papacy. God bless.
If the doctrine of procession from the Son defeats Arianism in a way the unaltered Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed does not, Which Divine Person proceeds from the Holy Spirit in order that He may be shown to be God? It is said thay Pope Benedict XVI struck "Patriarch of Rome" from the nomina of the papal office. The Patriarch of Antioch, as well as that of Rome, is a succesor of Peter. The claim of papal SUPREMACY is never affirmed by the ecumenical councils until Vatican I and Pope Gregory VI (the Great) denies universal jurisdiction. In fact, Pope Gregory writes that a title such as "Universal Priest" is a precursor of antichrist.
Just skipping along to the issue of the immaculate conception... Orthodox definitely do not ascribe to this teaching, just to be clear. As one of our bishops has noted, the Roman Catholic dogma of the immaculate conception is "an inadequate answer to an unnecessary question" or something to that effect. Sure, her conception was immaculate, simply because the conception of a person through human sexuality imparts no stain by nature. We differ from the RC's in our understanding of original or ancestral sin and what some call a "sin nature" and this causes us to approach the Theotokos and her sanctity from a different place. She is a human like us, and passes on the Jesus ALL that it means to be a human being. In order for Jesus to be "effective" as a Savior, she must be exactly what we are, passing on to him ALL that a human is, excepting sin which is not a part of us being a "parasite" (you might say). There is no need for a special form of conception for Mary.
You completely ignored everything I said about the IC. And we don’t differ on original sin at the end of the day but the problem is the Dox don’t have a unified view of original sin.
Ware was a great guy but his one liners done work anymore. You have to go deeper than this stuff.
We Catholic understand that Adam and Eve created without sins till the fall so as the New Adam and New Eve but we never denied that Mother Mary is a human being like us but still full of grace and there’s an Enmity between Satan and the Woman
I didn’t realize Steven Seagal was ordained an Orthodox Priest. He’s taken off a lot of weight, too.
I don’t see it.
Really? Maybe it’s because the image is small on my phone, but I see a superficial resemblance. Or maybe I just see things that aren’t there, lol.
Does an orthodox Patriarch not approve the ordination of his bishops?
The Lebron James patriarch.
Why make all the changes throughout the last 800-1000 years. Even on a regular day change at work or home or whatever causes division. And a division that has no benefit.
I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Do you mean Orthodox changes? It's arguable that the Orthodox triumph of Palamism over Barlaamism represented a momentous change. The Barlaamists certainly thought so!
And what about changes in praxis? Do you think the earliest Christians had elaborate iconostases or highly developed icons in the High Byzantine (c. 13th-century) style?
Hint: Byzantium literally did not exist in the first century. Nor did Byzantine icons or iconostases.
I was reading a deep Jack Chick tract why Mary is Crying and I had to here Jimmy Swagger in this video! Lol
I would disagree in the section about paedocommunion not being a deal breaker. That is one of the things that has made me disdain catholicism more than anything else. That, and that the laity in western rites do not receive the chalice. This was Jan hus' problem with the church, and they burned him. This is not a "meh disciplinary issue" if the Eucharist truly is life-giving, this should be taken more seriously.
I just received the Chalice this past Sunday. And I'm Latin Rite. 🤷
@child- eastern rite Catholics admit children to communion right away just like you. Its not a barrier to reunion.
Regarding the chalice, parishes make this call. Some people are not as careful as they should be. I’ve received in tincture in the ‘80’s. Seems like a good way, but I do whatever the bishop says.
This video is a massive cope
Your comment is a cope. Grow up.
I've gotta say, I'm pretty disappointed in this video. You guys are way too anemic with your criticisms because of both of your obvious biases for Orthodoxy. For example, when he brought up the Sack of Constantinople in 1204AD, I don't get why you guys didn't mention the Massacre of the Latins that occurred in Constantinople just 20 years prior where Eastern clergy egged on a violent mob killing all the Italian merchants living in Constantinople to also kill Catholic clergy and in the end, 60,000 Catholics were either killed or expelled, including 4,000 who were sold into slavery to the Turks? Maybe I need to be more like you two, but with the amount of disrespect I've received from Orthodox in real life who scoff at ecumenism and disparage the Catholic faith, I can't see Fr. Josiah's talk as anything but a condescending, sneering screed about Orthodox superiority that deserves to be taken apart.
Fr Josiah's constant "forgive me" before he says something rude is so hard to listen to.
Yeah
Hindu Trinity Brahma Vishnu and Shiva
Christian Trinity Father Son Holy Spirit
ISLAM - ALLAH
Stop worshipping pagan Trinity.
There is only one God ALLAH 😇💟
Absolute nonsense - so who do you think Jesus is? He claimed to be God - that was clearly understood to be the case by the Jewish Chief Priests et al, so either He is part of the Godhead or Christianity is false. If you believe it false, then Daniel, I fear your eternal salvation is in grave danger.
I have a hard time listening to this priest. He talks, or his delivery; he comes off like his is a voice of authority on any topic being discussed by him. He also comes off like he's been Orthodox his whole life, but he's a convert, still holding onto his former anti Catholic heart felt sentiments.
I'm a barber, and I used to service a Greek Orthodox Bishop that had knew Padre Josiah Trenham. This Bishop saw him a self righteous Ortho-Dad as opposed to an Ortho-Bro.
Having to remind the once protestant Josiah Trenham, that according to Greek Orthodox Cannon Law, Padre and his wife should be observing and practicing sexual abstinence during certain times of the year, and that the padre and wife obviously weren't doing so as evidenced by the amount of children that they had.
From my perspective, this man is a part of the problem when it comes to Church Unity.
And it seems like these types make up the majority of what we find here in Internet Land.
That's a very long, and ultimately useless ad hominin attack.